Proof That Limbaugh Prosecutor Lied about Having Permission to Release Confidential Plea Agreements

Rush Limbaugh Website ^

[Cubs Fan]

What the Florida States Attorney's Office (Prosecutor) Said Happened

MEMO TO THE FILE
January 22, 2004
From Ken Selvig

RE: Release of letters from attorney for Rush Limbaugh in response to a public records request

We have a received a public records request from Peter Franceschina of the Sun Sentinel for, among other things any correspondence to or from Roy Black and his law firm.  Mr. Black currently represents Mr. Limbaugh in connection with an ongoing investigation.

Yesterday by telephone I spoke with Pat Gleason, the AG's most knowledgeable person on the Public Records Law.  I did not tell her the particular case I was calling about.  The question posed was whether there is an exception to the Public Record's Law that would allow us to refuse to disclose a letter from an attorney offering to plead guilty in a case that is under investigation but not yet filed.  It is my opinion that there is no exception to the law that will allow us to withhold the letter.  Ms. Gleason agreed with my position.  She recommended and I agreed, that we should consult the Florida Bar for an opinion on whether the release of the attorneys letter would possibly raise an issue under the Rules of Professional Responsibility (RPC).

This morning, Barry spoke with Barbara Moore of the Florida Bar about the issue.  Ms. Moore's opinion is that the Florida Public records Law takes precedence over any possible issues raised by the RPC.  She said that there is an ethical obligation to follow the requirements of the law and that it would be unethical not to disclose the letter unless there is an applicable exception.  I agree.   

Therefore , we will comply with the request to disclose letters received from or sent to Mr. Black and his law firm.

What Really Happened  According to the Attorney General

Dear Mr. Selvig (Assistant State Attorney):

Thank you for your January 26, 2004 e-mail regarding our earlier conversation concerning the authority of the State Attorney to release a letter concerning plea offers in a pending criminal investigation. Your attempt to clarify that the decision to release the letters in question was made by your office is acknowledged. However, I am concerned that your memorandum to the file and the subsequent e-mail summarize only a portion of our conversation and omit critical parts of our discussion.

Specifically, I note that your records of this matter do not reflect that when you telephoned me you Indicated it seemed difficult to believe that plea negotiation letters could be releasable prior to trial. While we both agreed that we were unaware of any applicable statutory exemption, we also discussed the possibility that a court might refuse to authorize release based on constitutional concerns. For this reason, I recommended that in addition to making counsel from the Florida Bar as to any ethical concerns about releasing such materials, it was appropriate to notify defense counsel of the public records request and consider whether a Judicial resolution was advisable.

Both your file memorandum and e-mail emphasize that you did not tell me who the defendant was in this situation. However, that should not and cannot matter. Over the years, I have had many conversations with assistant state attorneys about pressing public records issues These conversations have been candid and in my view have helped the state to resolve public records issues and focus on the upcoming trial, In this case. however, it seems to me that the purpose in contacting me about this issue may not have been to obtain impartial advice on an open government issue, but rather to use a part of our conversation to justify your office's decision that the documents should be released. This is disappointing to me personally and professionally.

Sincerely,
Patricia R. Gleason
General Counsel

What Really Happened  According to the Florida Bar

To Barbara B. Moore From Barry Cusher

INQUIRY

Facts: Caller's office received a public records request in Rush Limbaugh case. File includes letters from atty in SAO to Roy Black, defense counsel. Checked with AG's office and AG says the files are public records except that there are 2 letters which include plea negotiations which are not normally to be revealed so may or may not be public record. AG said to call ethics dept.

Question: guidance

Answer: Can't provide legal advice or interpret public record statute. All info in file is confidential as to his client, the state, under 4-1.6. Once legally compelled to provide info, it becomes a question of law, whether a/c privilege or public records. If client, state, only agrees to reveal what they are required to under public records law, caller must determine what is legally required and what is not. If unsure, may need to ask court to determine it for them. See 92-5 generally on confidentiality vs. privilege. How legal issues of public record statutes factor in is beyond an ethics opinion.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Why do you constantly ignore the obvious? The AG suggested that the FL constitution and courts may trump the law in this matter.

[swampfox98]

I recently had my eyes opened when I took my sister to a surgeon who specializes is back surgery. He has done some remarkable things with people who were very bad.

Because she had osteoporosis for many years, she was beyond surgery. So the doctor had her to come back when the guy who sells back braces was in his office. Well my sister was given a brace at over $1,200.00, and it was so terrible it almost killed her. She made the mistake of calling the brace provider and telling him the brace hurt her, and on our next visit to the surgeon we found he was furious with my sister, having been primed by the brace man that he might lose his money from the insurance because of her complaints.

In all the years I have been alive, I have never seen any elderly person treated with such anger and contempt as this specialist treated my sister. He was rude, arrogant, refused to listen when she told him how much pain she was in. Then he kicked her out of the office, and when she made an appointment with the brace guy to see if she could get any help from him, he was deliberately 2 hours late for the appointment.

I hope to God that both these guys experience only half the pain my sister has before they die. Then they are going to see what it is like.

What I am seeing now is if you are an illegal immigrant, you are treated with kid gloves and given every consideration. If you are a citizen, to hell with you. And we're suppose to close our eyes to what is going on around us and vote for the politicians who are doing this to us.

The reason we are treated this way is because the politicians no longer represent white American citizens, they represent Mexico and President Fox is our new president, I don't care who wins in 2004, Fox is running this country.

[RS]

OK - So one of the AG's assistants suggested that he may want to consider going to a judge.... and the force of that statement is ...???

Again.. the SAO called her up because she is the resident expert in what they wanted to know - and they BOTH AGREED.


She may or may not know anything about what the courts may or may not decide, and it was not her decision to make the final call.
If it WAS her job, she might have run off to ask a judge to decide it, but if frogs had wings we'd call them birds...

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

RS = BS

She never said anything about going to a judge. There is plenty of case law. She knew that the case law says otherwise but she pointed out that she wasn't the AG's expert in that matter. She also pointed out the FL constitution, but you ignored that also. She implied that they should consult experts in case law and constitutional law. Not a judge.

[RS]

"RS = BS
She never said anything about going to a judge."

OK then what does this mean -

"I recommended that in addition to making counsel from the Florida Bar as to any ethical concerns about releasing such materials, it was appropriate to notify defense counsel of the public records request and consider whether a Judicial resolution was advisable..

Would you mind re-reading things before you attack me on fact ? It's getting boring....

[Cubs Fan]

I don't see that there is a possiblity for the orderly administration of justice if plea negotiations, which we all violently agree are not evidence, are allowed to become evidence in the court of public opinion before the negotiations have even concluded. Heck, why not let the Enquirer put someone in each SAO's office to sit in on the negotiations otherwise.

Great post and great point. The liberals/democrats often do this, sinking to new lows inheard of before is their speciatly.

no one ever tried to fillibuster a judge before, no one from the opposition party ever criticized the conduct of a president so harshly and so openly in a time of war, and no one probably ever thought to release plea negotiations to smear someone and taint the jury pool before. Most likely such things just weren't done.

[longtermmemmory]

yes ;-)

[longtermmemmory]

I said the leaks get the case transfered.

Under FL law, "getting off" by going through the intervention system of the courts is SOP for anyone. So IF Rush is charged, sending him into the intervention system same as anyone else is best.

However, it is apparent the SA has no proof of an illegal purchase admissible in court. The doctor shopping charges will be difficult if not impossible to prove given that Rush was not stockpiling. If also follows there is no proof because standard police procedures were not followed to have a controlled purchase.

The one golden opportunity the SA had is gone.

But do not dispair, when the file is officially closed and all the "stuff" becomes officially public record, everything the Cline's gave to the SA will be release as a further effort to bash rush. On last stab in the court of public opinion.

[Cubs Fan]

BOTH experts AGREED to the release,

*BUZZ* No they did not. They said weighing it all out (constitution, statutes et al [not just your Sunshine law favrote]) its not clear. He said they agreed with him that the documents must be made public. A LIE. the AG clearly rebuked him for it (if he did nothing wrong why the letter? why is the AG "disappointed in him personally and professionally?" Oh yeah, I forgot, these are the questions you refuse to answer.)

The only reasonable course of action in such a case would be to consult the defense and if defense said no, have a judge decide. He didn't instead he LIED. Because he just couldn't stand the idea that he might not get his chance to smear the accused. Now he may have to pay a price for hasty hate-driven stupidity.

BTW - shouldn't Black be filing a lawsuit on this if he thinks he's got a case?

I don't know, shouldn't the SA actually bother to charge Limbaugh if he thinks he has a case? Black may yet, we'll see. I hope he does.

[longtermmemmory]

"...., it seems to me that the purpose in contacting me about this issue may not have been to obtain impartial advice on an open government issue, but rather to use a part of our conversation to justify your office's decision that the documents should be released. This is disappointing to me personally and professionally."

This is my favorite part the the AG letter. Does anyone have the appology letter from the Palm Beach SA? It may be public record.

[RS]

"*BUZZ* No they did not."

Then what does this mean ?

"While we both agreed that we were unaware of any applicable statutory exemption,...."

That is the information he wanted from her, that's why he called her, that is what she is the expert in.
Anything additional she wanted to wheigh in on was fine, but they were in agreement that there was NO exemption.

The law says no exemption ... you MUST release...

Go find some case law that goes against that if you like.

"The only reasonable course of action in such a case would be to consult the defense and if defense said no..."

That's simply absurd... they don't get to decide what is exempt or not... that's the entire reason the law is in place...

[longtermmemmory]

If you read the letter, you see that the AG was not provided all the information.

Seeking a confession in the form of a guilty IS probative to the investigation. That is covered by the exemptions.

Regardless, the SA still has an ethics problem. As far as the bar is concerned ethics trump law. (see Jacksonvill drunk driver hit and run ID case.)

Proper procedure is to obtain an order from the judge and then appeal the order if it is a problem in order to have resolution from the state supremes ifnecessary.

You are just running in circles. The records would be release eventually after the case is done. I have never had a confinece broken for an active negotiation. Why should rush? This is a first. This case is full of firsts.


If the defense had no problem with the release and all parties agree to release then there is no conflict. duh. It is not absurd, it is seeking consensus.

The fun is beyond you monotonous refusal to understand law. This is now in the hands of the ethics reviewers.

The fact, the SA did not call roy black, the fact the AG was intentionally not given all information, the fact the SA lied about what the bar said, the fact the SA did not take the matter before a judge, the fact that an elected official is held to the standard of "if it looks like impropriety it is impropriety" by the bar ALL do not bode well for the SA. An discipline may force the governor to remove him without room for discretion.

[Cubs Fan]

"While we both agreed that we were unaware of any applicable statutory exemption,...." That is the information he wanted from her, that's why he called her,

He called her to ask her if she thought he must release them. He deliberately took half of her statement to portray her as agreeing completely with the release. (if he had been honest he would have included her objections in the memo, but of course he did not [because he's a liar]

That is why she's disappointed in him professionally because such conduct is deliberately deceptive , and personally because she thinks he's a lying axxhole (which he is).

But I suppose he's a hero to you. Anything to get your way, no matter how despicable, illegal, unethical its always the same with you liberals.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

consider whether a Judicial resolution was advisable..

That doesn't mean that you would necessarily go to a judge. It means search the case law. If you haven't filed a charge you wouldn't go before a judge.

[RS]

"That doesn't mean that you would necessarily go to a judge. It means search the case law. If you haven't filed a charge you wouldn't go before a judge."

Ok - I don't know, so I'll bow before that concept - So who's to say he did not do that ?

[longtermmemmory]

as a lawyer, if I see that in an AG opinion and a FL Bar ethics advisory, it means and screams ASK THE JUDGE. To do less is wrong. Additionally this is is a public official, his paths of conduct of much further restricted. (appearance of impropriety is impropriety) A private lawyer may have had wiggle room but an elected official does not. The entire SA staff is exposed. Every lawyer in his circle on this case is subject to investigation from the bar.

He has two opinions with arguable ambiguity but one crystal clear recomendation, ask the judge. If very necessarily would mean go to the judge. They could go to the same judge who reviewed the medical records.

Given the last paragraph of the AG response letter, the SA intentionally did not go to the judge becaus any judge worth anything would have kept the settlment negotiations confidential in the absense of mutual agreement.

Eventually they would become public, thus the sunshine law is specious. It just would not be a public relations advantage to the SA.

Remember the SA leaked the existence of the letters to a newspaper reporter, sun-sentinal i believe, an that is how that reporter knew to ask for those letters specifically. The SA tried to bury the letters in the LLF information request to try and falsly divert the onus of the request to LLF.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

Not a lawer, but I didn't think you would go before the judge prior to charging Rush, except for search warrents.

[longtermmemmory]

In this matter, there is no question you have to go. Legal ethics and bar discipline does not suffer playing loose with the rules.

If the medical file judge would not hear the case, then the SA would have to file a suit against the Sun-Sentinal and Limbaugh asking a judge to rule on their course of action based on the two communications (AG and Ethics hotline).

This case already is pending before the courts. There is "a case" at least to the medical records.

This also happens in matters where a lawyer has money in dispute in their escrow which has to someone other than the lawyer. The lawyer sues both parties and deposits the money in the court resgistry.

As for the opinions of the Bar, you don't have to do anything the ethics hotline suggests. However, that does not mean you will not have to defend you actions and have the recomendation used against the offending lawyer.

Does anyone have more information on the ethics complaint of the LLF?

[longtermmemmory]

anyone else getting a cnn cookie alert when this page loads?

[RS]

" (if he had been honest he would have included her objections in the memo, but of course he did not [because he's a liar] "

If YOU were honest you would not call them objections, but simply concerns that he MAY want to consider that she brought up.

Where in her statement does she say that they should NOT be released until you do such and such ?

... and just WHY should he include them ? He was explaining why he released them, not everything he considered and rejected in releasing them. This was not a history lesson.


I suppose to be completely honest, and not a liar, all FR posts should be made with the delete key disabled, so that everything that was considered and rejected in the post would be shown also... do you do this ?